Sanctions are acts of war when country X uses force to adversely affect trade/commerce going into or out of country Y.

Withdrawing from trade is not an act of war (and is not really a "sanction" in this sense) - it's just a unilateral decision by country X not to engage in trade with country Y.
In this case, no use of force is necessary - between X and Y, that is. Country X might use force to prevent its own citizens from engaging in trade with country Y, but that wouldn't be an act of war against country Y.

Blockades ARE acts of war - they require the aggressive (non-defensive) application of force against some other target country in order to be implemented.

You could use aggressive force to intervene in your own internal affairs, but if you ever tried doing so against another country in any way, you were considered to be committing an act of war. My understanding is that this was more or less the standard view until some time in the not-too-distant past (not exactly sure when, but surely no more than a century - if that).

Last edited by Occam's Banana; 12-17-2011 at 11:12 AM.

"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police." -- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (p. 55)

"The evil that a man inflicts on his fellow man injures both - not only the one to whom it is done, but also the one who does it. Nothing corrupts a man so much as being an arm of the law and making men suffer. The lot of the subject is anxiety, a spirit of servility and fawning adulation; but the pharisaical self-righteousness, conceit, and arrogance of the master are no better. [...] The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob." -- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (p. 58) [bold emphasis added]

This describes sanctions against Iran since 1979 and their effects-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran

Originally Posted by Torchbearer

what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.

My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

When we are talking about sanctions on Iran, does anyone know the specifics?

I guess I am trying to justify a defensive war based on sanctions.

well a very easy one is the banking system.

banks are not allowed to transact with Iranian companies. accounts of companies and individuals are frozen by fiat (government decree).

Government doesn't just sanction countries either. For instance, the same type of sanctions I mentioned above are applied to online gambling, albeit not as severe in the seizing of assets (frozen accounts). Government make it a civil offense and sometimes criminal for banks to transact with companies who conduct certain types of business.

These sanctions are acts of war against a country because the serve to put a country at a tactical and strategic disadvantage that has military implications. Sanctions are aggressive in the sense that they project hostile relations inside the borders of an adversary.

Contrasting sanctions to normal trade relations, sanctions are those economic restrictive acts that occur without formalized relations and occur outside the realm of diplomacy. Tariffs are formalize trade relation consequences that are carried out within a specific set of rules and moderated by by the trade agreements.

Sanctions can be imposed on countries with formal trade relations at the risk of jeopardizing normal trade relations and agreements.

This is my understanding and not an academic lesson. I have no sources or links, but I can scratch the surface if you need citations.

In that case, you're going to have to wait until Iran militarily attacks us or forcibly imposes economic sanctions on us.
I don't see any way around that - not if you want justice on our side.

"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police." -- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (p. 55)

"The evil that a man inflicts on his fellow man injures both - not only the one to whom it is done, but also the one who does it. Nothing corrupts a man so much as being an arm of the law and making men suffer. The lot of the subject is anxiety, a spirit of servility and fawning adulation; but the pharisaical self-righteousness, conceit, and arrogance of the master are no better. [...] The criminal has incurred the penalties of the law, but not the hate and sadism of the judge, the policeman, and the ever lynch-thirsty mob." -- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (p. 58) [bold emphasis added]

Let's say a person came to your house and nailed all the windows and doors shut so you couldn't get anything in/out. Would you be upset? What would you consider the person who did this to you?

You have described a blockade (active measure to prevent trade) as opposed to refusing to do business with an entity (a passive measure).

Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

How so? No one has a "right" to do business with me under terms and conditions to which I do not agree. If I name a price you do not like, that is not an act of war.

Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

How so? No one has a "right" to do business with me under terms and conditions to which I do not agree. If I name a price you do not like, that is not an act of war.

But if CA and I want to make an exchange between us in which we agree on a certain amount of money for a certain good, and if you demand a cut of the action without us agreeing to your involvement, that is an act of war. And that's what a tariff is.

Let's try this again. A is friends with B and does not particularly like C. A has two widgets to sell and sells a widget to B for $10 and sells a widget to C for $20. Has A committed an act of war against C?

Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

Let's try this again. A is friends with B and does not particularly like C. A has two widgets to sell and sells a widget to B for $10 and sells a widget to C for $20. Has A committed an act of war against C?

No. But the statement you were replying to wasn't about free exchanges between individuals, it was about tariffs.

No. But the statement you were replying to wasn't about free exchanges between individuals, it was about tariffs.

First, we need to clarify the notions of the rights involved. There is not a "right" to buy anything. If we agree that property rights are a characteristic of the property itself - I have a "right" to sell or use the property I own, but no right to property I do not own. Thus, any infringement on the ability to do commerce is an infringement on the rights of the seller, not the buyer.

In the case of a tariff, applied by a third party, without consent, is an infringement on the seller, making his property less valuable in the market, because it carries a higher price. It is not an act of war, as the owner still retains his property, and is free to sell it to anyone who pays the price. It is just that different potential buyers may face different prices for the same property. Any recourse is the seller's to make, not the potential buyer.

Not an act of war.

Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

First, we need to clarify the notions of the rights involved. There is not a "right" to buy anything. If we agree that property rights are a characteristic of the property itself - I have a "right" to sell or use the property I own, but no right to property I do not own. Thus, any infringement on the ability to do commerce is an infringement on the rights of the seller, not the buyer.

If I own an ounce of silver and want to give it to you for a box of ammo, am I the seller or the buyer?

And regardless of which I am, how does some third party attain the right to involve itself in that transaction without our permission and demand that one of us give it something when we make it?

And suppose we do not agree to give that third party its cut and that third party does some act of violence against one of us as a punishment for our insubordination to it, then does it become an act of war?

If I own an ounce of silver and want to give it to you for a box of ammo, am I the seller or the buyer?

And regardless of which I am, how does some third party attain the right to involve itself in that transaction without our permission and demand that one of us give it something when we make it?

And suppose we do not agree to give that third party its cut and that third party does some act of violence against one of us as a punishment for our insubordination to it, then does it become an act of war?

What act of "war" was committed by who and against whom?

Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

The act of war is committed by whatever regime takes the tariff, and against whomever they take it from.

But I'm not sure I understand your question. Is it regarding something I said in the quoted text?

How is that different from collecting a toll?

Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

My field
Short: YES OR NOT ACT OF WAR CAN BE DEBATED BUT IT GAVE IRAN "JUST CAUSE" FOR WAR!!!!

According to "Just war doctrine" sanctions on Iran are not "act of war" but are giving Iran "jus ad bellum"- the right to go to war because they will do this: "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain"... USA sanction will cause lasting, grave, and certain and irreparable damage to the Iranian people and economy.
Diplomatic sanctions-done
Economic sanctions-done( USA declared minimum of two acts of war: 1. against Irans banks and 2. against anyone in the world that tries to do business with an Iranian bank. ) and more
Military sanctions-dont know

Sanctions are actually not an act of war, nor are they an act of aggression in legal terms understood by the international community.

Now, if a country declares in advance that any sanctions imposed on them would be considered an act of war, then they could legitimately declare them to be an act of war once imposed.

Jimmy Carter declared that sanctions on mid east oil would be declared an act of war. The Iranians AFAIK have not declared sanctions on their central bank to be an act of war. Therefore, the US government imposing sanctions on the Iranian central bank are NOT an act of war because it doesn't fit the definition, nor do the Iranians consider it to be.

Blockades on the other hand are indeed an act of war.

In my next post I will give law review articles which discuss this in depth and in legal terms: